The entire time I have watched this movie, I've tried to keep an absolute open mind, listen to both sides of the story cause I didn't know anything prior. The movie does a good job of that by not telling you any of the important details until the jury come to their decision. A lot of the fallacies in that argument were Hasty or stereotypical. And the biggest thing that irritated me was that "well how do you know?" Argument. Because neither did they! That was the whole point of them being there in that room. I have seen a couple comments about how "they" wished the jury system operated the same way this movie did, and I humbly go against that. They were almost all willing to send this kid to death to get on with their own life. It took one person to understand what it meant to have a reasonable doubt, and actually put that motion into play and make them question what they held on to as logic. It is so easy for an individual to hold on to their personal perspectives that it can actually inhibit them on making a sound decision. I feel that is what the movie was about, take the time to really question what you hear, to really critically think on the information that you have. They were so willing to make a quick and hasty decision on someone else's life, we have much to learn from this. I feel like there are enough real world scenarios similar to this that it should be common sense. Never believe the first thing that you hear and always be the one willing to fully understand the argument before you talk. Don't be afraid to stand alone in your argument, you might be the thought process that breaks the chain.

strengths of the group portrayed in 12 Angry Men? Voting on ideas that most of the group agrees with. Hearing A juror’s idea out. Was very affective because it gets the general understanding from each other.
weaknesses of the group? Having a fixed mindset. having this in a situation can lead to some problems. For example, it can lead to A misjudgment on the groups side causing confusion. Having an open mind seat can disregard all confusion. this way the group can acknowledge all the facts and lead to a most probable conclusion.
By Tyler Isaiah Odems

The legal system has changed. Now you are guilty until proven innocent.

The truth is that the police and the legal system must guarantee protection and safety for those who have money and wealth. Others have the right to produce support measures that secure the system.

THANK GOD FOR THE RIGHTS WE HAVE IN AMERICA, and hopefully all juries care as much about their cases (AND THE LIVES OF THEIR DEFENDANTS) as the characters in this story.

CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED TOO OFTEN IN MODERN SOCIETY. DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY A JURY OF PEERS IS NOTHING LESS THAN NECESSARY. IMAGINE IF YOU OR YOUR FAMILY WAS INNOCENTLY PUT TO DEATH FOR A CRIME THEY DID NOT COMMIT - ALL BECAUSE THE JURY DID NOT CARE ENOUGH TO DEBATE THE FACTS (or find them "not guilty" after finding a reasonable doubt) AND THE PROSECUTION ONLY CARES ABOUT GETTING A CONVICTION - AND THE TRUE GUILTY PERPETRATOR GETS OFF SCOT-FREE.

ALL THAT MUST BE PROVEN IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE IS ANY REASONABLE DOUBT AT ALL, IT IS THE PROSECUTION THAT HAS TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH FACTS AND INCREDIBLY STRONG EVIDENCE BEYOND ANY AND ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS.
IF THERE IS ANY SINGLE REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN YOU MUST AQUIT, WHETHER YOU THINK THEY ARE GUILTY OR NOT.

I have watched and enjoyed this movie a handful of times over the span of the last 40 years. However, I watched recently because I am using it for an assignment in a Criminal Justice class I am teaching for homeschool students. (I am an attorney). It was really the first time I sat down and laid out the evidence and really analyzed it (instead of letting the movie carry me along). I analyzed all of Henry Fonda's observations and considered many counterpoints not raised in the film. My conclusion . . . guilty. I was a little disappointed. (A few changes could give reasonable doubt). Also, regarding those reviewers complaining about the jury system, notice they rarely if ever make proposals for a better system. It's not perfect, but one can see even here -- 12 heads better than one. Enjoy!

The importance of deliberations. The architect was not simply a denier, doubter, or rebel, but an expert and needed experiment-based facts to prove. The simple disbeliever, the prejudiced (slums produce criminality, slums products are by nature violent - deeply rooted beliefs - by default - guilty). The psychologically traumatized father who was psychologically stabbed by his own son - was biased in his judgment, subconsciously he was accusing his own son and wanted him - the defendant - punished. The senior juror with the perfect sight and correct deduction. The one who was a shifty - simply superficially thinking about everything through life and even passing on the option to make a decision for himself included, to a boss, or someone else. the accidental juror who did not want to be there, did not think much about the responsibility put on his shoulder and would rather be done immediately and go to watch his football match... Excellent

One of the most thought provoking films of all time. Excellent acting by the entire cast. Illustrates the seriousness of being a member of a jury in the United States. No one who sits on a jury should ever take this civic responsibility lightly … EVER.

all were at the top of their game in this film. Unfortunately, the film has been parodied and copied so many times that the film's originality has been blunted.

It's interesting how juror 8 analyzed small details

I think is good enough

...and now we are living in times when the law became a kind of a show for... well, you know what word should be here.

It was a good movie but there wasn’t a plot twist or anything climactic which kind of ruins it

I am watching this for an assignment at my school! Hello everyone!

The film shows us in our humanness and demonstrates why we need the jury system, rather than just leaving matters to lawyers and judges.
The basis for the plot is that the defence lawyer had no motivation to give an adequate defence and that there was a reasonable person on the jury who posed the question, what do we actually know?
The film stands though, regardless of the jury question, as a masterpiece in drama.

I won't go as far as to say this movie explains why we can't have the fair jury altogether. The movie plot pushed their biases to the limit (which is always good), and perhaps more than anything, the movie shows how we humans often can't fairly evaluate many events around, be it something of no importance or someone's life in question

I believe that this is a great explanation of how we dont have a fair jury